Marcus Agius has given a very different account of Barclays' recent travails
to that of its former chief executive, Bob Diamond.

Softly spoken. Urbane. Eloquent. At times halting. Marcus Agius was the most unlikely of assassains but yesterday he delivered in two hours and 25 minutes a comprehensive rebuttal of the testimony of former Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond.

Mr Agius’s approach brought to mind a latter day Mr Salter from Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop, avoiding the wrath of Lord Copper with the words “up to a point” instead of “no”. Asked about the validity of Mr Diamond’s evidence, Mr Agius answered 11 questions with a simple but damning phrase: “I cannot speak to Mr Diamond’s testimony.”

The politicians dealing with the Libor rigging scandal took little time to draw conclusions. “Mr Diamond has been misleading this Committee,” said outraged Labour MP John Mann in a session which focused more on what Mr Diamond had not told the MPs and less on the specifics of the scandal.

“I can’t comment on that,” replied the Barclays chairman. The line of questioning continued . “He [Mr Diamond] has calculatedly and deliberately misled this committee?”

“I cannot speak to Mr Diamond’s testimony,” replied Mr Agius as he began a series of answers that failed to back key elements of the American banker’s testimony last week.

Asked then whether he had been aware of the Financial Services Authority’s concerns about his appointment as chief executive in 2010, Mr Diamond said he knew nothing.

“Did you relay the concerns to him?” asked Pat McFadden. “I would have relayed those to him,” answered Mr Agius. “So why does he tell us, 'I knew nothing about it at the time . I don’t know anything about it’?” continued Mr McFadden. “I can’t speak to his testimony,” replied Mr Agius.

That proved to be just one of a series of concerns the cross-party politicians raised. What of Mr Diamond’s knowledge of more recent FSA concerns set out in a letter to Mr Agius in April following a meeting with the Barclays board a month earlier, for example?

Mr Diamond’s response to questioning last week did little to shed light on those concerns. “I don’t remember anything – I didn’t brief before this on the February meeting, so I don’t mean to skip over anything, if I am,” he said when asked last week about his recollection of the specific issues raised by regulators.

His chairman, however, proved to have altogether more detailed memories. “I remember discussing it with him,” said Mr Agius, adding that the conversation had lasted 20 to 30 minutes. “On that basis, would you say Mr Diamond lied to this committee,” said Tory MP David Ruffley. “I can’t comment to Mr Diamond’s testimony.”

The exchange continued. “There are two sets of statements, on-the-record, one of them untruthful. I ask you again, did Mr Diamond lie ?” continued Mr Ruffley. “I’m not going to speak to Mr Diamond’s testimony,” said the Barclays chairman. “So you’re not going to defend him,” asked Mr Ruffley tellingly. “I’m not going to speak to his testimony,” repeated Mr Agius.

With every repetition of the phrase, further questions were raised . Even the former banking boss’s recollection of his departure early last week differed markedly from that of his chairman. “Did one or more of the senior regulators ring Marcus Agius,” committee chairman Andrew Tyrie asked Mr Diamond last Wednesday. “I don’t know,” replied Mr Diamond.

That reticence could not have been more at odds with the approach taken by Mr Agius. “It was made very plain to us [by Sir Mervyn King ] that he [Mr Diamond] no longer enjoyed the confidence of his regulators,” the Barclays chairman said.

And did he tell Mr Diamond of the Bank’s position? “I reported to him and I called at his house ],” said Mr Agius. “Just to be clear, you told him you had had a conversation [with the Governor]?” added Mr Tyrie. “ Yes. I told him,” said Mr Agius.

If Mr Agius realised the significance of what he was saying he did not let on. But Mr Tyrie left him in no doubt . “ You have made a start in that process [rebuilding the bank’s reputation] with a good deal of candour and directness ,” said Mr Tyrie.

So damaging was the questioning that Mr Diamond was last night forced to put out a letter branding suggestions he had been “less than candid” as “totally unfair and unfounded”. The former bank chief was up front about the likely impact: “The comments made at today’s hearing have had a terribly unfair impact upon my reputation, which is of paramount concern to me.” Only time will tell how unfair that impact really is.